The digital age continues to present additional opportunities for visual communication using computers. As an example, digital photographs are routinely being manipulated to produce a desired effect or result in the magazine and film-making industries. In the medical field, computer-based imaging has and continues to gain acceptance in a clinical setting as a viable communications tool between plastic or "cosmetic" surgeons and potential patients.
People are with increasing frequency consulting physicians about cosmetic surgery. While in many cases the patients considering cosmetic surgery have an impressive understanding of the procedures available and medical terms used to describe these procedures, it is apparent that the slightest miscommunication may result in dire consequences. This has promoted the use of computer imaging to facilitate communication between the physician and prospective patient. Specifically, high-end aesthetic imaging systems allow a physician to take pre-operative digital images of the patient, e.g., including profile and frontal views. The images are stored in memory in the computer where they can then be edited. Using feedback from the patient, the edited images are useful in fully understanding the procedures desired. The visual support provided by a computer-based imaging system is extremely valuable on both sides. A cosmetic surgeon can more readily understand what patients hope to achieve by a cosmetic surgical procedure; and patients can view a detailed visual representation of predicted results, including both the benefits and limitations of the procedure.
Existing aesthetic imaging systems typically use a number of tools to allow a physician to manipulate a pre-operative image of a patient to illustrate an intended post-operative result. Preferably, the tools allow the physician to manipulate the preoperative image during a consultation with a patient. By manipulating the image with the patient in attendance, the patient receives immediate feedback from the displayed results. For a successful preoperative consultation, the use of the editing tools should be as unobtrusive as possible. During the consultation, a physician would like the patient to focus on the end results of the surgery, rather than the technologic wizardry used to demonstrate those results on the video monitor. Unfortunately, the editing tools used in existing aesthetic imaging systems typically hinder rather than help the physician in demonstrating the results that may be achieved through cosmetic surgery.
Among others, a disadvantage of existing aesthetic imaging programs is that a physician or facilitator in a pre-operative consultation typically must go back and forth through many windows-based menus in order to edit an image. Cycling between the various menus to invoke the tools necessary for a consultation is disadvantageous in that it is time consuming. For example, some physicians schedule a follow-up visits for patients to allow the physician time to edit the images. More important, however, is that the process is distracting to the patient and tends to make the pre-operative consultation all the more mystifying. As a result of the disadvantages associated with prior art systems, some patients lose interest or become frustrated with the interview, both of which may reflect back on the physician.
A further disadvantage of existing aesthetic imaging systems is that it is impossible for a physician or facilitator to display different combinations of the edits that they have performed. In existing aesthetic imaging programs, as a physician edits a patient's image, the physician's edits are added to the preexisting edits of the image. Most programs are only capable of showing two version of the patient's image; the unedited, original version, and the final edited version incorporating all of the physician's changes. It is therefore difficult for the physician to show various combinations of the edits that had been performed. For example, a physician may edit an image to remove wrinkles around a patient's eyes and to narrow the patient's nose. Existing aesthetic imaging programs only allowed the physician to simultaneously show all of these changes. If, for example, the patient wished to view the changes to the eyes without the changes to the nose, it was difficult for the physician to easily separate out the sequence of edits that had been performed to adjust the patient's nose. An improved aesthetic imaging system in which a physician can more easily edit pre-operative images in response to a patient's suggestions and inquiries would be extremely advantageous.
A still further disadvantage of existing aesthetic imaging systems is that the systems allow a physician to perform nearly flawless editing of a patient's image. Unfortunately, the edits performed by a physician on an aesthetic imaging system are often unobtainable results that cannot be achieved when actual surgery is performed. Unless the physician is especially skilled at using the aesthetic imaging system, it is difficult to show the patient achievable results, which typically fall within a range somewhere between the original patient image, and the optimum results as displayed by the edited image on the screen. It therefore would be advantageous to develop an aesthetic imaging system that allowed a physician to display more realistic results that are achievable through surgery.